New Arizona law ends city rules on where churches, mosques can go

In the raging debate over a planned mosque near Ground Zero, President Barack Obama has said a religious institution should be free to choose where to locate.

Based on a law they recently passed, Arizona's most conservative leaders seem to agree.

State lawmakers strengthened churches' rights this year, passing a law that prohibits cities and towns from using zoning codes or land-use rules to restrict where religious facilities such as churches, mosques or synagogues can locate.

Planned mosques in New York, California and Tennessee have spurred community opposition recently. But any mosque planned for Arizona could build where it pleased, as long as it complied with any local zoning and building requirements that would apply to other development.

The law, considered the first of its kind, was backed by most of the Legislature's Republicans and opposed by most Democrats, who argued that it gives religious institutions preferential treatment over the concerns of cities or residents.

"We're seeing a lot of churches coming into areas that were not historically where churches wanted to be, like industrial areas and downtowns," said bill sponsor Rep. Steve Yarbrough, R-Chandler. "The basic goal was to see that churches were not discriminated against but treated similarly to other land users."

In the New York mosque case, Obama has described the issue as one of freedom of religion.

"I believe Muslims have the right to practice religion as everyone else in this country," he said. "And that includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan in accordance with local laws and ordinances."

Federal law already prohibits zoning and land-use regulations that target religious institutions, unless the regulation is a means of "furthering a compelling governmental interest."

But supporters of the new law said cities and courts were allowing too many exceptions.

"That resulted in a lot of confusion for both cities and religious bodies," said Center for Arizona Policy attorney Deborah Sheasby, whose conservative advocacy group backed the bill.

Yuma, for example, is fighting a lawsuit after it stopped a church from opening downtown. State law forbids businesses such as liquor stores and bars from operating within 300 feet of a church; the city said the church's chosen location would have hindered redevelopment of a historical downtown district. Gilbert until this summer had a zoning code on its books prohibiting religious groups from meeting in private homes.

Arizona's "Free Exercise of Religion Law," which went into effect July 29, states that "government shall not impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that imposes an unreasonable burden on a person's exercise of religion, regardless of a compelling governmental interest."

After heavy opposition from cities, a clause was added to permit cities to establish a limited number of entertainment districts where a religious facility can agree to waive the 300-foot rule and open.

The state law is not retroactive and will not impact the outcome of the Yuma lawsuit, which is awaiting a ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

Religious facilities still have to meet any city requirements that apply to all land uses, such as the number of parking spaces needed or a maximum building height. For example, supporters say the law would not have changed the battle over the steeple height of the proposed Phoenix Arizona Temple.

"If a city has a religiously neutral standard that says nobody can have a building above this height, that would still be allowed," Sheasby said. "But if they said, 'We'll allow a hotel to be above this height and a business complex to be above this height but we won't let a church steeple be above this height,' that wouldn't be religiously neutral."

League of Arizona Cities and Towns Executive Director Ken Strobeck said cities lose any kind of regulation of religious organizations under the law and it gives religion preferential treatment over other types of land uses.

"Any church or individual could use their property in whatever manner they wanted to practice religion," Strobeck said. "Even if it's something that bothers the neighbors, they can say, 'Hey, this is my religious practice,' and nothing can be done about it."

Yarbrough said the law was not designed to put religious groups above the law, but "just level the playing field."

And he said the law levels the field for everyone - whether it's a Baptist church or an Islamic mosque.

Arizona has about a dozen mosques, including a few that were built after 9/11. The two largest new facilities, the Islamic Center of the East Valley in Chandler and the Islamic Center of the Northeast Valley in Scottsdale, faced some opposition from neighbors arguing they would cause traffic problems, but the cities did not block the construction of the mosques.

Both Yarbrough and Sheasby admit the New York mosque situation is a tough one but stand by their law as preserving Constitutional religious freedom for all.

"Whether or not (the mosque) should be there is a different question than whether or not the government should stop it," Sheasby said. "From a legal perspective and generally speaking, the government needs to be neutral towards religion."

Arif Kazmi, a Chandler engineer who directed the planning and construction of that city's mosque, said that when it comes to building a mosque - or any other religious facility - it's not about laws. He said even with this new law he never would have built Chandler's mosque without the support of the neighbors, something it took him more than two years to win.

"Law or no laws, the people who live around the temple are important," he said. "If you don't win the hearts of the people, you are nowhere."